SUNDER LAL Vs. ROOP CHANDRA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 22.10.2003 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 8 Sitapur in Civil Appeal No. 30/1995 Sunder Lal Vs. Roop Chandra and another, by which the appeal was dismissed which was filed against judgment and decree dated 23.2.1995 by Munsif, Biswan District Sitapur in Civil Suit No. 215/1991, Sunder Lal Vs. Ram Sanehi.

(2.) The facts of the case are that a civil suit was filed by appellant, Sunder Lal against one Ram Sanehi for specific performance of the contract of the agreement of sale dated 14.5.1990. This agreement of sale was alleged to have been executed by Ram Sanehi in favour of Sunder Lal for sale of his agricultural land, Gata No. 91 measuring 369, Gata No. Ill measuring 228 and Gata No. 92 measuring .067 total area 0.664 Hect. situated in Gram Shanker Pur, Pargana Mehmudabad, Distract Sitapur for a consideration of Rs. 20,000.00. Rs. 15,000.00were paid as earnest money and as per agreement Rs. 5,000.00 the balance amount of consideration was to be paid within three years. The appellant made several efforts for getting the sale deed executed in his favour, but the defendant Ram Sanehi avoided to execute the sale deed. A registered notice was sent by appellant. Sunder Lal to Ram Sanehi on 21.6.1991 requiring him to appear in the office of Sub-Registrar for execution of sale deed after receiving the balance amount of sale consideration Rs. 5,000.00.

(3.) The defendant did not appear in compliance of that notice. Therefore, the suit was filed. During the pendency of suit Ram Sanehi is said to have died on 20.8.1992. He did not file any written statement by that time. It is said that Ram Sanehi before his expiry had already executed sale deed of the disputed land in favour of present respondents 1/1 and 1/2. These respondents happened to be the nephews of Ram Sanehi. They were sons of one Nanoo. It is also said that one Smt. Kamla Devi was the wife of Nanoo and the present respondents were the sons of Kamla Devi from Nanoo. After the death of Ram Sanehi an Application Paper No. 16 Ka-1 on the record of the Trial Court was moved under Order 22, Rule 4 and Order 6 Rule 17 for impleadment of present respondents, Roop Chand and Mool Chand as parties to the suit. It was alleged in the application that deceased Ram Sanehi did not leave any of his heir.